Just wanted to discuss different point of view and strategies when using taijiquean (yang or any other) for practical fighting.

Yes, yeeess! its true a good taiji person should live up to taiji priciples and avoid violence, know how to walk away, or something like that, but lets juts say the confrontation is unavoidable:

Taijiquean is a defensive art that relied on sensitivity and that teaches us to react acordint to the situation. Technicaly, we would then wait for an attack, reack, adhere to the oponent and then apply skills learned in pushands to achieve a superior position and the apply ehatever technique the situation calls for.

Sometimes however, we should take the initiative in order to "trick" the opponent into attacking, so we can the apply the principles above stated.

Anobody's thoughs on this? do you agree with this strategy? if not... what could be an alternative?

Yah! Im verfy fond of Trapping and chin na myself. What I usually do when saprring somebody from another style (and I do this quite often just for fun, even if I get my butt kicked from time to timt), is the I would fake an attack, forcing him to "offer" me a limb when he blocks my feint. I try then to adhere and half tep to close the distance a little bit and end up in push hands range. After that its just tui shou, only instead of pushing him away I would try to lock him, just hard anough to make him tap out, nothing more.

If it was a real life "encounter" I could always tighten up the lock till he is sanding on his toed and then kick or sweep his legs eithoug letiing go of the lock! hid own body weight would then increase my leverage, ending up breaking or tering a joint or tendon! not nice at all but it happens!

Not everybody is that easy though, ans with the popularity of groundfighting these days, everybody will have a little ground training (or think they do!) and try to take you down. Its gets a little hairy this way but its still fun!

Im talking about "friendly" sparring of course! but it helps a great deal to at least apply a very basic part of the art in "real" time!

after controlling the limbs any punch/palm strike, elbow strike or even kick will have room to be executied if needed.

I am more familiar with Na, rather than Chi Na. As I learned it controlling alone is better than seizing and controlling, because the seizing, or trapping, itself give a portion of the trapper to the trappee.What I meant by "trapping" in my reply was to lay a trap by appearing to give a small portion of yourself to your opponent or by giving your opponent the perception that you have overextended, and then when he seizes that perception you will have him as he issues against you. "Laying a trap", as opposed to "trapping and locking".But whatever works.I am personally fascinated by Chin Na, as I've not previously practiced the "chin" half of it.I'm hoping to get more training on the techniques required to use this half of "Chin Na" as I learn more of the YCF style.Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming has a book I just read on this, very interesting. I clearly see the Na that I'm familiar with, it's the use of local chi in the hands that puzzles me. I'm more used to grand circulation chi, as used in Na, than I am at applying this local chi.I have been playing with it, and I'm not bad at it, but I am untutored and clumsy.I'm hoping to get better at it as I learn more.

My own view of the doctrine of "launching later, but getting there first" is that this does not really concern movement per se, but rather the use of Yi and Shen. I think what one is supposed to do is not commit first.

I like your scenario, but I think the devil is in the details. Merely by connecting with our opponents we give them energy that can be used against us; however, if we connect with the intent of going along with their energy, we are much safer. We "hide" behind their energy.

When you feint, you can still "hide," but this depends on how you execute the feint. If you feint with a leaping roundhouse back kick, you will have great difficulty "going along" with the opponent's energy. If you merely jab with your forward arm and put none of your body behind it, it is much easier to remain connected to the opponent's Yi and Shen.

My own view is that once you have an "aggressor" or even an "opponent," you have a clear separation of Yin and Yang and scope for Taiji. If your opponent has nothing to defend or is willing to walk away, then you cannot help but be an aggressor. Here your feint can become much more risky, because you expose a commitment to action that your opponent does not share. All the energy in the situation comes from you and can be turned against you without your realizing it.

I am not a fan of the idea that you must always wait for the opponent to attempt a technique before you move. In my opinion, the opponent's posture, stance, distance from you, and even gaze already give you plenty to work with. If the opponent insists on violating your personal space and getting nose to nose, will you do nothing until he or she tries something from point blank range?

I basically like the idea of what you have proposed, because an "attack" often begins long before the first punch. Our reaction should be to the first intimation of the attack, not its external manifestation. When we initially "react," however, our reaction must still be appropriate and conform to the principles. Give the opponent only what he or she cannot use. Take only what he or she cannot spare. Try to move in such a way that he or she will not notice the difference until it is too late to do anything about it.

In particular...You wrote:<<I am not a fan of the idea that you must always wait for the opponent to attempt a technique before you move. In my opinion, the opponent's posture, stance, distance from you, and even gaze already give you plenty to work with. If the opponent insists on violating your personal space and getting nose to nose, will you do nothing until he or she tries something from point blank range?>>

I think those are really good points to ponder...I will do so.

Also just curious as to the fine differences between stance and posture...I am sure you had something in particular in mind when defining those, and was wondering what examples you might give concerning those two definitions.

Psalchemist, I was not really trying to define "stance" or "postures," but you are perceptive in divining that I did in fact have something in mind.

"Stance" came to mind as I was thinking about how one probably needs to adjust to someone who advances with a particular leg forward or in a particular formal stance. If you use your stance to "challenge" such a person, you can usually figure out very quickly how flexible there strategy is.

Someone who comes at you squarely is also different from someone who comes at you with one side forward. Such people betray preferences for right and left differently.

You can also often see whether a person views his or her stance as a dynamic thing or as a mere platform for other things.

By "posture," I was thinking more about what I think of as "Shi." Is the person moving so as to set up a classic one-two strategy? Provoke you to attack first? Paralyze or intimidate you with his or her movement? Is the person favoring mobility or power? What weapons is the person preparing: hands, arms, legs, or full body tackle? Are his or her hands held loosely, in open palms, fists, or claws? Is there any prepared defense in the posture, such as arms held high in front of the face? If not, what options has the person reserved to react to sudden punches? If the person looks like he or she is simply prepared to take punches and come in on you, you may have to be very, very wary.

YOU WROTE:[["Stance" came to mind as I was thinking about how one probably needs to adjust to someone who advances with a particular leg forward or in a particular formal stance. If you use your stance to "challenge" such a person, you can usually figure out very quickly how flexible there strategy is.]]AUDI

[[Someone who comes at you squarely is also different from someone who comes at you with one side forward.Such people betray preferences for right and left differently.]]AUDI

AS IN A FEINT TO SEE THEIR REACTIONS?...YES, THAT'S SEEMINGLY GOOD ADVICE, I'VE READ THIS BEFORE...(BRUCE LEE WROTE MUCH ON THE TACTICAL ASPECTS OF "COMBAT")...GOOD POINT.

[[You can also often see whether a person views his or her stance as a dynamic thing or as a mere platform for other things.]] AUDI

THAT'S AN INTERESTING STATEMENT, AUDI...DYNAMIC?...CHANGING METHODS?... I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THOSE OPPONENTS OF DYNAMIC STANCE MUST USUALLY GAIN THE ADVANTAGE OVER THE PLATFORM PERSONA...

=============================================================

YOU WROTE:[[By "posture," I was thinking more about what I think of as "Shi." Is the person moving so as to set up a classic one-two strategy? Provoke you to attack first? Paralyze or intimidate you with his or her movement? Is the person favoring mobility or power? What weapons is the person preparing: hands, arms, legs, or full body tackle? Are his or her hands held loosely, in open palms, fists, or claws? Is there any prepared defense in the posture, such as arms held high in front of the face? If not, what options has the person reserved to react to sudden punches? If the person looks like he or she is simply prepared to take punches and come in on you, you may have to be very, very wary.]]AUDI

CAN I DEDUCE THEN THAT STANCE AND POSTURE ASPECTS ,TO YOU, ARE... ALMOST LIKE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERSONALITY VS. CHARACTER.INNER VS. OUTER.THE CHOSEN VS. THE INHERENT..???

AM I INTERPRETING YOUR SUGGESTIONS CORRECTLY?.

THANKS FOR THE MANY DETAILS OF ANTICIPATING THE OPPONENTS MOVEMENT BEFORE ACTUAL PHYSICAL (IN THE TRUEST SENSE*) MANIFESTATION...

I think this is a complex issue – the strategy of engagement in taiji!!

In any fighting their are only three possibilities: You attack first, theyattack first or you attack at the same time.

On a simple level any of the above should lead you to a push hand situation. Push hands is not so much about controlling the other persons body – but about controlling their mind.

You attack first:

I think if you were to strike at the opponent without having first ‘stuck’* then you are not empty** and are thus giving an intention by which you could be controlled.

Reaching out for the opponent you build a bridge to them, which in Wing Chun they call ‘asking hand’. It could be any movement – but I think the important thing is to give them emptiness.

(As an example reaching out to an aggressor with your hands in the push posture, showing open palms, is quite disarming as well as being an excellent position to gain control from)

Having asked for the opponents contact, and got it, then you can go in with a calm mind and you can attack with the feeling of crushing your opponent. (As an example)

I guess my point is you can take the initiative whilst still remaining passive. I think of it as touching, touch and give them emptiness.

* You can also stick to the opponent without having touched – but that’s beyond the scope of what I want to try to cover here** This is tied in with the idea of striking from ‘void’ perhaps but that is also beyond the scope of what I want to try to cover here

This is only an example of course. What we do with Taiji depends on our ability I would say.